Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations declare that this is a non-destructive mutation, and "Add" is consistent with that. The description adds scope about supported view types and optional settings but does not disclose permissions, duplicate-name behavior, failure modes, or other behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It efficiently lists the view types and optional settings that matter for this creation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex creation tool with 15 parameters, 47% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description omits key required parameters and several type-specific parameters, and it provides no usage or permission context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to resolve from the schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 47% across 15 parameters, so the description should compensate more. It helpfully mentions filter, sort, hidden fields, and type-specific concepts such as grouping, date fields, lanes, and cover, but it omits required targeting parameters like baseId, table, and name, and leaves several optional parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Add a ... view." It clearly enumerates supported view types and optional view settings. It does not explicitly distinguish this creation tool from the sibling update_view tool, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not say when to use create_view versus update_view, nor does it state prerequisites or when a particular view type is appropriate. Usage is only implied by the word "Add."

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.